IS THE DOUBLE EFFECT ACTION THESIS APPLICABLE TO ANTICOVIAL VACCINE? Or COVI-19.

 

Note. Perhaps many of our readers do not understand the moral and theological approach that is being given to the question of the covi-19 vaccine due to the little doctrinal preparation on the subject. This despite the numerous examples and repetitions made on purpose for your correct understanding, we suggest to please and wisely ask the editor since the author of the article is Italian.

Medical awareness

     Scientists, not in the hands of pharmaceutical companies, teach and demonstrate, after laboratory research, that in vaccines there are also cells from fetuses expressly aborted with the abortion (and not accidentally by abortion) for the packaging of the serum of the vaccine. Also, its effectiveness is highly questionable, and many researchers admit the dangers of serious side effects. Therefore, the issue of vaccines presents at least three problems of consciousness, the first of which is a major obstacle.

   There are hundreds of scientific publications on this subject and I refer the reader to them, which have been summarized at http://wwwrenovatio21.com of November 22, 2020.

    Regarding the vaccine for covid-19, the researchers also teach that it contains microorganisms that can modify human behavior, that is, DNA, causing it to be controlled remotely as if it were a robot, so there is also this other problem ethical, that of artificial intelligence, nanotechnology together with graphene.

Moral Theolog

Recently a study has been published in the United States (Cf. Fraternidad San Pío X) that, to resolve the question of whether it is lawful or not to be vaccinated, applies the doctrine studied in Moral Theology a) on action with double effect, is say, about the material and formal aspect. and b) on only material cooperation with the formal sin of others. The one that they consider that there is no mortal sin and, therefore, the vaccine could be licit.

    In summary, it is argued that it is not legal to manufacture vaccines with aborted fetuses expressly for the packaging of vaccine sera, but it is affirmed that it is legal to be vaccinated with them because it would only be a material cooperation (to be vaccinated) to the formal sin of others (to get them to aborted women produce vaccines with aborted fetuses).

 Double acting action

     The problem a) of cause with double effect and b) of material cooperation in the formal sin of others is the following:

    Is it lawful to a) carry out an action, from which two effects are expected to derive: one good or at least indifferent and the other bad, and then b) only materially cooperate with the possible sin committed by others?

Moral Theology (cf. Suma Theológica, I-II, qq. 18-20) teaches that an indirect voluntary act (or in cause) is morally bad, if the agent foresees at least in a confusing way the bad effect of the good act or indifferent (for example, if I drink I foresee that I will get drunk and blaspheme, however, despite this I drink and blaspheme, even though I am stunned without having full warning and deliberate consent to the act of blaspheming. Thus, the blasphemy was intentional or indirect and therefore I have seriously sinned).

   However, exceptionally, moralists add that this can only be lawful if four conditions are met: 1 °) the act must be good in itself, if it is bad it is prohibited as sinful; 2 °) the operating subject must point to the good effect and not to the bad one, that is, it must have a morally good intention and the bad effect must not be wanted or foreseen directly, but only allowed indirectly; 3 °) the two effects should not be connected to each other so that the good effect (end) is born from the bad (means), since evil cannot be done to obtain the good, the good end does not justify the bad means; 4 °) there must be a serious, just and proportionate reason to allow and not want the bad effect. (For example; a man injured in the leg whose wound must be cauterized and in the absence of anesthesia he is given an alcoholic drink, the act is good in itself, the patient does not want to get drunk but to heal whose effect is good, in the third room the effect is good: that the leg does not get gangrene despite the fact that alcohol is bad and, finally, it is tried to avoid gangrene and the possible amputation of the leg)

Material cooperation in the formal sin of others

    Formal cooperation, whether direct or positive to the sin of others, is always illicit in itself; indirect and negative material cooperation may be permissible under certain conditions. In fact, [in material cooperation] it is not an action in the strict sense of the word, but a negative behavior (silence, tolerance) in the face of the sin of others; Failure to act does not establish any causality and does not imply any guilt in the wrong that others do. However, it is an omission, so if there is a duty to act and speak, then the omission can become a sin. It is only lawful if the rules of the indirect volunteer (or in causa) or on the allowance of harmful effects in a morally good act are verified.

   The indirect volunteer (or in causa) exists when something is not wanted in itself, but is only allowed to happen; however, if something is wanted as a means to an end (for example, aborting the fetus to treat the mother or to produce a vaccine) the action is not lawful. If the effect of the volunteer in question is bad, it is imputed to the agent, if he predicted it at least confusingly (for example, Noah, who was unaware of the effects of wine, was not guilty of his intoxication. According to the Holy Bible, Noah planted a vineyard and With its fruit he made a wine which he drank without measure and was totally drunk, but he was ignorant of the effects of this action so it was not imputed to sin) and if he had the power to prevent the cause (if they block me with force and They make a bottle of liquor drink violently, I am not guilty of drunkenness).

Moralists explain that in material cooperation the action is not directed to the sin of others, (to whom their cooperation to sin was formal in making said bad vaccine by itself) but rather the action of the cooperator (eg the act to be vaccinated) is enjoyed by the sinner (e.g. making vaccinations with aborted fetuses) without the knowledge of the cooperator, as a pure physical action without any moral consent (for example, if I sell a knife to someone who will kill another with it, without my having foreseen it; in the same way I vaccinate myself without knowing that the vaccine contains aborted fetuses). But unfortunately, it is not spared the side effects of a bad, lousy, and hellish vaccine.

  The case of formal cooperation is different, but only implicit, that is, it is not desired internally, but it collaborates physically and externally, even though the act is intrinsically bad (for example, a nurse sins if she collaborates physically with the doctor in  abortion, even if he does not approve of it morally and inwardly; a Christian sins if he sacrifices outwardly to idols, even though inwardly he pretends to hate idolatry). In fact, it is never allowed to do outwardly something that is sinful in itself, even though it disagrees internally.

Divine Revelation (2nd Book of Maccabees, 6:18 ff.) Recounts the magnificent and very current example that the ninety-year-old scribe Eleazar gave us, recounted in the Holy Scriptures, who preferred to die rather than pretend only to eat pork In fact, when the Syrians opened his mouth to force him to eat pork, impure meat, he resisted; since the Jews present, who loved him, gave him pure meat, telling him to pretend to eat pork, he replied that he could not pretend, that he would become a pagan if he did so and preferred to be martyred ... "Where are the Maccabees?" Monsignor Lefebvre wondered sadly after the pan-ecumenical day in Assisi in April 1986.

   Material cooperation in the formal sin of others may be lawful, but it must go back to the indirect voluntary and the bad effect of a good act. In practice, it is necessary to consider, if they exist, the four conditions that we have seen previously, since only in this case is it permissible to materially cooperate with the formal sin of others.

    For example, if I rent a house to a doctor, and I know that an abortion will be performed there, I cannot do it, because I must avoid the bad effect that occurs when renting my house, which will be used for the practice of abortion.

Furthermore, if the act has only negative effects, it is always illegal. Now, many scientists believe that the Covid-19 vaccine does not have any positive elements, but there are many elements, if not all, that are seriously dangerous to health. These are: abortifacient serum, graphene, nanoparticles, and the enzyme that alters human A.D.N.

 Problem solution

     Now, if we apply the principles of morality mentioned to the case of the anticovid-19 vaccine, it follows that an indirect or voluntary act is morally bad if the agent foresees at least in a confused way the bad effect of the good or indifferent act; However, it can only be lawful if four conditions are met: 1 °) the act must be good in itself; if it is bad, it is prohibited as sinful; 2 °) the acting subject must seek the good effect and not the bad one, that is to say, it must have a morally good intention and the bad effect must not be wanted or foreseen directly but only allowed indirectly; 3 °) the two effects should not be united in such a way that the good effect arises from the bad, since evil cannot be done to obtain the good, the good end does not justify the bad means; 4 °) there must be a serious reason, just and sufficiently proportionate to allow the bad effect.

    Now, let's look at the four conditions one by one, in the case of the vaccine, except the second one that is not strictly relevant to the morality of the act of vaccination:

1) the act must be good in itself, if it is bad it is prohibited as sinful: inoculating a liquid made with explicitly aborted fetuses to package the vaccine is a bad act. This first condition alone makes the act of vaccination immoral and illegal. Furthermore, the COVID-19 vaccine was conceived from the perspective of Transhumanism, which aims to create man with artificial intelligence instead of God: "Eritis sicut dii - You will be like gods" (Gen. 3: 5). Finally, the side effects of vaccines are very dangerous to health.

For which there are already reliable cases of secondary physical, mental and even death consequences from the vaccine.

    2 °) The two effects should not be united so that the good effect is born from the bad, since evil cannot be done to obtain good, the good end does not justify the bad means; Now, without aborted fetuses (middle) you don't get the vaccine and the prevention of covid-19 (end). So the supposed good effect (prevention of covi.19) comes directly from the bad (liquid made with aborted fetuses). This condition alone also makes the act morally wrong. In addition, due to the current facts of deaths of vaccinated people, it shows that it contains zero immunity in the body since it was another purpose; kill the vaccinated sooner or later through the side effects of these perfidious vaccines.

    3 °) There must be a serious, just and sufficiently proportionate reason to allow the bad effect (preventing a virus is not a reason to allow abortion, the vaccine is not a curative or saving medicine, but it must be pure prevention of a flu ).

Therefore, double effect cause cannot be applied to vaccination.

 In other words, material and formal collaboration are illegal with respect to this covi-19 vaccine.

 

WARNING. If the article is not understood on its first reading, please read it a second or third time. Thank you.

    Father Curzio Nitoglia

 (Original article in Italian:

 https://doncurzionitoglia.wordpress.com/2020/11/23/tesi-azione-effetto-doppio-e-vaccino-anticovid/)